Much can be debated about the emotional impact that divorce has on the participants and any children involved, but physical results are much more difficult to explain away. A new study published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior found that divorced people have 20% more chronic illnesses than those who are continually or never married.
The study even found that remarrying reduces the increased risk, but does not eliminate it. Those that remarried still had a 12% increase over those continually or never married.
[Researcher Dr Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago,] said: “Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly to changes in current conditions.
“In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries.”
Anastasia de Waal, of the think tank Civitas, said: “This research highlights the fact that whilst divorce has become much more common, it can take not just a tremendous emotional and financial toll, but also a heavy health one.”
Obviously, this, as well as the potential psychological and mental aspects, does not hold true for every individual that goes through divorce. However, this does reiterate the importance of stable marriages and marriage as an institution within a society. It provides benefits not only to those involved in the relationship, but to the nation as a whole through increased productivity and decreased strain on resources.
Studies of this kind also seem to corroborate the Christian idea that what goes on in one part of the person affects the whole. The each sphere of the mental, physical and spiritual nature of a person can impact the rest and is why all three must be considered when determining the health of an individual.
The mental and perhaps spiritual angst that accompanies divorce leaves a stain across the entire person, including their physical bodies. None of that means that divorced people cannot be restored or should be viewed as outcasts, quite the contrary. It means that continual marriage should be stressed even more, but when divorce does occur, the individuals involved should be cared for and encouraged even if it seems they are unaffected.
Given that marriage not only contributes beneficially to the country but also to the married individuals (demonstrated health benefits), I find it yet another cruelty imposed upon us by christianists that you refuse to acknowledge said benefits should be extended to gay people. Of course, if you assume (as does daniel – witness the links offered above) that gay marriage damages straight marriage (and therefore straight people) I suppose you will rationalize this away (better them than me). However, I cannot see how a Christian can justify this way of thinking.
However, I also understand that christianists don't think this way because they don't view gay people as they do themselves. To conservative and evangelical christianists there is no such thing as a "gay" person, only heterosexuals who are perverse and rebellious enough to flaunt "God's plan" and prefer same-sex sex, or, if they are feeling unusually generous, view gays as dysfunctional, mentally ill heteros who need "healing" and some sort of "reparative therapy." Thus, to such people (you, Aaron, are one, daniel a particularly loud and obnoxious example) gay people can have no real, authentic voice in their own defense because they are either mentally sick or just plain perverted, and their arguments can safely be ignored or dismissed. And they can even claim to "love" their victims because they want to cure them from their dysfunction and turn them back into fully functioning, God-approved, heterosexuals. Never mind all mainstream and official (ie, non-religious motivated) science has disproven their theories, nor the damage their position and actions cause gay people.
And, please, Aaron, don't bother to deny this: your support for reparative therapy proves otherwise. As long as you do, there can be no peace between us.
And, please, Aaron, don't bother to deny this: your support for reparative therapy proves otherwise.
The only point I've ever made on that issue is that there have been people who have changed somehow. Some people have said they were formerly gay and became straight.
Now, you can disbelieve them, say they are lying or whatever else you want to do, but that is their personal story as you have your own.
I do not think I've ever said that gay people should undergo anything against their will. I don't think you or anyone else can change, unless it is something you want to do. So I'm not sure who reparative therapy helps and how it helps them unless they are already prepared to change their sexual attraction.
However, I also understand that christianists don't think this way because they don't view gay people as they do themselves.
That is a lie and you know it. Or at the very least, you cannot know that would think such thoughts. I view you just as I view myself. According to my Christian worldview, you have your own struggles with sin, while I have mine. In that regard, we are no different. I have said so repeatedly.
You can have a real voice, you do have a real voice, to speak your opinion of the issues based on your own personal experience and the facts as you see and interpret them.
For someone that complains about not having a voice, you quickly want to tell Christians, who disagree with you, to be quiet on the issue.
From 1st John, Chapter 1:
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
I hope that helps with the "Christians don't view themselves the way they view gay people," thing. :)
That particular letter was written to Christians, and looking up the surrounding context (something I can always recommend) will only support it further. (I can also recommend commentaries by Yarborough, Calvin, Burge, Metzger, and Stott, depending on how far you'd like to check to see if I'm going out on a limb)
The problem with this sin thing is twofold:
1. Though xians always retreat into this "all have sinned" meme, it is a fact that they have a special sin category reserved exclusively for gays. While straights can enjoy and express their sexuality within the bounds of marriage, gays are denied this. In fact, straight sexuality is not, essentially, sinful, whereas, according to christianists, gay sexuality is uniquely sinful. According to christianists, gays can have no legitimate expression of our sexuality: we are uniquely sinful.
2. If "all have sinned and fallen short…" then how can christianists ever judge anyone else? Aren't their minds fatally compromised by sin? How can they know without doubt that they are wrong re: hx? This, I think, was the Master's point in the "judge not…" command. Really, how can you guys know what you are saying is God's view when you yourselves are distorted by sin? A little humility seems in order.
That is a lie and you know it.
That's all right, Aaron, I understand. You've already reported how your semi-moderate views on hx here have gotten you in trouble with the bigots in charge of your chosen career. You needn't agree with me.
btw: Here's Sullivan in a nice paean to his marriage:
Since Aaron and I got married, we've both grown more domestic, happier, calmer. His rock-solid emotional support has allowed me to venture further and further into the kind of intellectual and political terrain that requires the nerve and self-criticism it's hard to sustain emotionally alone. And since we've been together, he has been able to start an acting career he couldn't have managed financially alone – and his work is extraordinary. (If you are in Ptown this summer, check him out in "Take Me Out" at the Provincetown Theater – Wednesdays and Thursdays through August 20). To watch someone you love blossom and grow and mature and thrive is what my Jewish friends call a mitzvah.I love Aaron unconditionally; but every day I somehow love him more.
Of course, our marriage is invalid as far as the US government is concerned. And Megan's description of her choice to marry or not is denied many. For Megan, not getting married can seem a silly riposte to the religious right. For many gays, getting married offends the religious right. But marriage should be embraced for no political reasons (and mine certainly wasn't). It should be embraced because you love another human being and want to be with them and support them and hold them for the rest of your life.
(Bit of a reverse order here)
Louis, is that *Andrew* Sullivan? He's too nutty for me to read. Trig? I just can't take him seriously. Assuming it's NOT Andrew Sullivan, I read it, loved it, and I think it gets to the heart of why that discussion needs to be handled with care and sensitivity, not semantic games.
Could I ask you to post the "Judge not" text with whatever surrounding context you think is applicable? I think it actually supports the very heart of what you have to say, but perhaps not exactly like you think.
Sadly, what you say in point number 1 is all too true. I think there is a terrible burden placed on anyone who is gay, without prejudice to how that burden got there. Even more sadly, and with greater difficulty, is the consideration of how moot that is. What God has established, we ignore at our own peril. I do know that Jesus offers his love, grace, forgiveness, and brotherhood to ALL who would come to him in repentance and in love. There is not one person who can come to the cross without denying himself first. Not one. So in that way, you're unique exactly the same way that everyone else is unique. I don't say that to be dismissive of your burden, but you would do well to understand you're not alone, and God wants to lift your burden and give you a peace beyond all understanding.
(sigh) What's the use?
Whatever burden I felt regarding this issue was mainly the making of Christianity (as least in this culture), along with its ally, the patriarchal hegemony. I've pretty much thrown off this burden and without the aid of the orthodox god of the christianists. So you can save your sermon for those who agree with you, for it is patronizing in the extreme (of course, the fact that you cannot see that is part of your problem). The fact remains, you guys (ie, "straights") wrote the rules to fit your own situation. I see no reason to follow something so ignorant and alien to my reality.
I would love to know more about my problem, as you see it.
As I see yours, you've got presuppositions that you don't weigh against evidence, reason, pragmatism, concordance, or any number of standards. Your starting place, and please if I'm wrong correct me, is, "I'm gay, so gay's okay." Anything that challenges that or disagrees is either to be dismissed with the wave of a hand or declared evil. You even take it further, beyond the thought, idea, or words, to declare the person behind them evil and morally bankrupt.
Interestingly, no one within the orthodox of Christianity goes that far.
I like you, have gay friends, named my child after my dead gay uncle, and according to you, on the gay issue, I'm "dismal".
That reflects on you, not me, Louis.